"Fun" can mean a lot of different things for different people. For me Dogs of War would probably be "fun" if it was designed as a "serious" (competative) strategy/tactics game. (Other people may find "grinding xp" 'fun', in some masochistic way that eludes me. No offence; everyone is entitled to his or her own ways of pleasure, of course.)

Figuring things out on my own, I consider "fun".Being limited in doing so by an artificial 'progression system' that explains me the game in a pace that the game 'thinks' should be my learning speed, I do not consider 'fun'. (I consider myself a rather quick learner.)

For the word has just been used multiple times now, I would be curious to know what the devs consider to be "fun".

Almanro wrote:Be very careful that this may be tricky, e.g., if one profile is much stronger/useful than another one and it is unlocked only at lvl 12+, many new players may quit because they'll loose too many games (and so couldn't lvl up!) against older players who have already unlocked it, bringing back the difficulty to maintain a new player base.

I agree that devs should avoid setting too high a levelwall behind certain unit profiles, it just increases the gap between new/veteran players that much more.after 3 weeks-1month of playing, a player should have unlocked access to buy/play all units. any longer, it would seem there is too much of an advantage to long-time players, having access to unit types that newbies do not have access to.

After that, playing that long they should already be hooked onto DoW or not. then, progression should just be ELO rankings, and out-of-game progression (unlocking new missions, new skins, new non-gameplay features). If you want real feeling of progression in rankings, there should be tiers (bronze, silver, gold etc.) and just aesthetic level system (like League of Legends, after a certain point levels dont really matter, until the last level lv30)

you guys were right to aim for a lower AP bracket though (250 maybe even 300)...the longer the game and more the units, that is more for the hardcore base, but less accessible to mainstream (as many ppl dont always have time for long games). all hardcore players were once casual, but not all casual gamers will be hardcore. if we get a really big veteran playerbase, im sure re-instating one higher AP bracket would be good, but pooling everyone into one APbracket and gamemode is best for population and game at this moment, imo.

as for being able to make money off the game, I think when more units/heroes come in, it will be more profitable. but we need a growing playerbase instead of declining, first. when it gets its feet, ppl will want to get more companies, new heroes etc. i think for new players, getting their first competitive company should be relatively easy, but to make multiple companies should be harder to maintain/achieve.

P.S. i wish you guys just scraped injuries alltogether...its one of the features in the game that is "anti-fun". someone suggested making it lore-related, like cool battle scares that are just for fun descriptions. i know it is part of company management, but maybe there are other ways that dont affect in-game gameplay directly. maybe if injuries only affected ability to successfully complete missions, or something else out-of-game. like a superficial morale meter. even if it doesnt mean anything, some ppl just dont want to keep their company in bad morale lol

Unlocks are ok as long as the starting armies are competitive at near the top level. This means even a casual player can compete with those who can play hours a day. But only through skill will they reach say top 10.

If you then make the unlocks unique in a way that they allow for different play styles or unique armies it won't matter since the new players isn't being forced to level to compete. The draw to level is then still there and you can make money since people will want to get those different units so they can try out the new styles but won't feel obligated.

InjuriesI on the other hand feel the injury system was completely underutilized which was it's failure. If you look at the game systems where injury systems work you notice that injuries work both ways. Some are negative, some are positive but most have both a positive and a negative effect. Having only negatives makes it a handicap that only hurts newer players.

The effects aren't game changers but they are unique enough to make the unit different.

Like a Swordsmen that gets Fear 11 but -2 PAR and DOD.

Also I would like to see a lot more lore attached since even though it seems like a lot of work it will actually make everything a little more real and will encourage newer players to hang around a little longer since they want to see what happens next. Like say as you level you unlock a scenario mission every two levels that plays out a story for the faction you chose.

Hi, I played the game in closed beta and I liked it a lot. But as you guys said, it was not sticky enough. I came back to kill some time, and I liked the changes from closed beta to now and I think the new version you guys are bringing will be even better. Just two things concern me:

-Death match is the favorite mode of my friends as well as mine, and winning the match by killing the hero just destroy the death match mode.

- The AP limit 250. It's okay if some people want a faster match with few units, but as some already said in the topic, some of us want a big match with a lot of units (not being bound to just 3~6 units).

Yes I'm kind of interested in the unit profiles and their cost myself.It was hinted that you were looking at about the same number of units per army as currently so I take it you guys are lowering the cost?

Would it be possible for you to say preview two profiles of each of the the basic melee unit. This would give us in the community an idea where your heading. what I mean by this is 2x Swordsmen 2x Fang 2x Skeleton.

That combined with the preview for the new mode would give us a pretty good idea of what is coming.